Apple not giving information about the LiDAR's wavelength. Is it safe for the eyes when taking pictures? or when using the apps to measure height, etc. ?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPhone 12 Pro Is the iPhone 12 pro lidar is eye safe ?
- Thread starter Meni39
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
LiDAR hasn't been used by up to 50% of the population, and been part of our culture for 7000+ years.
Apple uses VCSEL (Vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser) to project infrared light. This is the same technology used Face ID, laser printers, optical mice, and a lot of medical equipment.
If it was dangerous, we would know, but it’s just infrared light.
True, but we have been using LiDAR since the 60s. Not to mention, it’s just an infrared projection. We’re exposed to infrared anytime we turn on a lightbulb or go outside.
Does not change the fact that just because it is available to buy and use, does not mean it’s safe. Which was my point.
No, Lidar is very dangerous. The one in the iPhone 12 Pro has killed hundreds and blinded thousands - that's just fact.
hmmm this begs the question. The sun damages our eyes, why do they allow the sun?? What’s up with that? Can’t they blow it up?
You are half way correct. But infrared can also be dangerous with higher levels. In the end its just energy which transforms into heat.
above 1mW it will damage the eye when focused. There are infrared laser engravers and cutters (of course requiring much more energy)
You never know. Therefore I want to make a research before purchasing the iPhone 12 Pro
It's not the same technology as the Face ID as the LIDAR produces laser beam, whereas the Face ID is only IR LED's
About Optical mice - it's not safe to look directly into the laser of the mice.
"it’s just infrared light." - laser is also light - could be in the visible range or infrared. Laser is more powerful, therefore could be danger
I used lidar to do a 3d scan of my dog, it burst into flames and disintegrated. Be warned…
It is the same type of tech as used in faceid, they both use VCSEL chips For the laser grid. The FaceID Unit actually produces more points than the lidar unit on the reverse, as FaceID needs more detail close up and lidar needs to project further.
Last edited:
face ID not using VCSEL, only LED's. The LIDAR uses VCSEL. I think they using the Sony sensor, not sure though
Nope, they both use VCSEL. FaceID creates an array of 30,000 dots vs lidars 200. The primary difference is the receiving sensor on the lidar unit, that’s where the magic happens. The lidar unit uses an SPAD direct time of flight sensor. The lasers used are of a frequency that is not absorbed by the eyes so it cannot cause damage.
and no, my dog Didn’t disintegrate, LOL.
Except it is the same technology as Face ID. The dot projector sends a bunch of dots on your face with a laser projection, just on a smaller scale. It's not just "IR LEDs". That doesn't even make sense (there would be no way to measure depth using just an IR LED).
Optical mice cannot damage your eyes. All optical mice are classified as level 1 lasers, which do no damage to the human eye.
Laser is not "more powerful", laser is just a term for a device that emits light by optical amplification. There are many different levels of lasers. Yes, some lasers are incredibly high powered and can do serious damage, but there are also lasers that do less damage than just staring at a household lightbulb.
No. Infrared gets also „absorbed“ by us. To the Same factor as visible light.
If this would not be the case (mirror, transparent) the sensor could not detect anything.
there is no damage cos the energy is just so low.
Last edited:
Lol.. So you don't understand the technology yet you think you can comprehend how it works if Apple releases technical information so you can determine whether it's safe or not?
Of course we know! Of course it’s safe! This thread is ridiculous. You guys keep being paranoid about absolutely nothing. I’m going to go out and enjoy my technology. And I’m leaving this thread. This is no longer a rational grown-up conversation.
you guys act like kids. instead of just arguing about ridiculous stuff and sarcasm. cant you just answer a question serious and accept it in a serious way?
We would but too many of us had our brain cells eroded by Lidar death rays.
The Multi-Junction VCSELs from Lumentum used in the iPP emit at 905 and 940 nm.
At 400–1100 nm, most of the light is transmitted all the way to the retina.
There is evidence that IR can be perceived by humans as light. The eye can withstand collimated light at about 10 milliwatts per square centimeter (at the cornea) in this band (there is lot published about all this, go visit e.g. Google scholar or pubmed; ).
here is the visible human spectrum within a broader electromagnetic radiation range:
so here you have a chart of transmittance for the human eye:
First, in general, watt for watt, UV is generally worse (almost fully absorpted by vitreous and retina in the eye) than visible and visible is worse than infrared.
You can see that there is a large amount of absorption in the near and infrared band. This makes e.g. the lens susceptible to cataract damage. Historically glas work blowers are affected by this due to the fact that some glasses will radiate a lot of energy in this band when heated.
When you sit in front of a fire, you may get tons of infrared and very little visible. If you feel heat on your skin, you are getting a few dozen milliwatts per square centimeter on you skin. That is equivalent to full direct sunlight at noon.
So, although a campfire may not look that intense, it may actually be brighter than the Sun in the infrared.
There are various standards like ANSI Z136.1-2000 standard for protection of the human eye from laser exposure etc - here are some bits of it on Wikipedia.
So yes, NIR can technically damage the eye. Firstly by heat and when focused by a lense onto e.g. the retina (as opposed to say UV, which can directly disrupt individual molecules). However as written there are standards for these things, it's easily possible to develop emitters or applications while remaining well within them, and manufacturers seem to be doing it (NIR is applied for quite some time in e.g. eye tracking, so there is a lot of data and knowledge available).
If you buy the largest IR floodlight available on Amazon and you stare at it 200 mm (~7") from your face for more than 1000 seconds (~ 16 minutes) there is a possibility you might damage your cornea.
So don’t do that.
In general, you should avoid staring at hot or bright light sources, IR or visible, whether they are designated “safe” or not.
At 400–1100 nm, most of the light is transmitted all the way to the retina.
There is evidence that IR can be perceived by humans as light. The eye can withstand collimated light at about 10 milliwatts per square centimeter (at the cornea) in this band (there is lot published about all this, go visit e.g. Google scholar or pubmed; ).
here is the visible human spectrum within a broader electromagnetic radiation range:
so here you have a chart of transmittance for the human eye:
First, in general, watt for watt, UV is generally worse (almost fully absorpted by vitreous and retina in the eye) than visible and visible is worse than infrared.
You can see that there is a large amount of absorption in the near and infrared band. This makes e.g. the lens susceptible to cataract damage. Historically glas work blowers are affected by this due to the fact that some glasses will radiate a lot of energy in this band when heated.
When you sit in front of a fire, you may get tons of infrared and very little visible. If you feel heat on your skin, you are getting a few dozen milliwatts per square centimeter on you skin. That is equivalent to full direct sunlight at noon.
So, although a campfire may not look that intense, it may actually be brighter than the Sun in the infrared.
There are various standards like ANSI Z136.1-2000 standard for protection of the human eye from laser exposure etc - here are some bits of it on Wikipedia.
So yes, NIR can technically damage the eye. Firstly by heat and when focused by a lense onto e.g. the retina (as opposed to say UV, which can directly disrupt individual molecules). However as written there are standards for these things, it's easily possible to develop emitters or applications while remaining well within them, and manufacturers seem to be doing it (NIR is applied for quite some time in e.g. eye tracking, so there is a lot of data and knowledge available).
If you buy the largest IR floodlight available on Amazon and you stare at it 200 mm (~7") from your face for more than 1000 seconds (~ 16 minutes) there is a possibility you might damage your cornea.
So don’t do that.
In general, you should avoid staring at hot or bright light sources, IR or visible, whether they are designated “safe” or not.